| |
Main
Date: 26 Aug 2006 11:52:09
From: Carlos
Subject: About Pluto Demotion
|
Mixing emotions with science is a bad starting point. Who says Pluto is not
a planet?
What was done was to regroup the thousands of solar system bodies into some
categories. If we don't do that we will end up with dozens of planets.
In a broad sense, all the celestial bodies, except satellites, that
translate around a star is a planet. If we use this broad sense definition
we will end up with thousands of planets. So we need to reorganize the
nomenclature of the solar system making it more simple and easy to
understand.
So, we now regrouped all the "planets" (in broad sense) into the following
categories:
Planets : Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus.
Dwarft Planets : 2003 UB313, Pluto, Charon, Ceres
Asteroids : thousands of them.
Comets : thousands of them.
Now we have 8 big planets and 4 smaller planets that we call dwarft planets
, one of them is the famous Pluto, once considered a big planet but latter
find out it wasn't so big. The asteroids and comets maintains their
definitions.
What's the big deal about all that? Why all the fuzz and weepings?
Will the Universe change because of that?
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 07:53:30
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
Hi:
As you've said in the first line of your article, the problem is
EMOTION.
The general public learned all they know about Pluto in elementary
school, and his name, naturally, for many, brings to mind Disney's
friendly cartoon dog, not the God of the Underworld. They get warm
fuzzies thinking about Pluto. It's all wrapped up with their favorite
teacher, Miss Smith, first-grade naptime, and Disney cartoons down at
the Roxy.
That being the case, they are deeply saddened by Pluto's "demotion."
Some apparently think this ruling means Pluto will be PHYSICALLY
removed from the Solar System (sorta like that Mickey Mouse cartoon
where Pluto feels UNLOVED and Mick comes out to see the shocking vista
of an empty doghouse and Pluto's empty collar lying on the ground)!
;-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
The Annual SCT User Imaging Contest is Underway!
<http://www.rothritter.com/contest/2006/ >
Carlos wrote:
> Mixing emotions with science is a bad starting point. Who says Pluto is not
> a planet?
>
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 22:57:32
From: Carlos
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
Hi Rod
Emotions is good for normal people (as long as you don't have any heart
diseases).
It helps you fell more humane.
In Science you need to put emotions aside. You need "cold" thinking to
decide logically.
I too once was a little boy and love that doggy Pluto (and Mickey Mouse
too).
But when we are thinking things scientifically we must put emotions off.
Pluto was not excluded from the list of solar planets. They call it now a
dwarft planet.
I think that in the future some bigger asteroid will be "promoted" as dwarft
planets too.
So we have Planets (large), Dwarft Planets (medium) and Asteroids (small),
and some
even smaller bodies that have a "tail" that we call Comets.
We who learned about Pluto in elementary school will never forget this
little doggy planet.
To evolve we need to be open minded. In a few years ours grandchildrens will
assimilate
this very logic classification.
So take your scope out and start observing.
Clear Sky
Carlos
"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156604010.575278.147050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> As you've said in the first line of your article, the problem is
> EMOTION.
>
> The general public learned all they know about Pluto in elementary
> school, and his name, naturally, for many, brings to mind Disney's
> friendly cartoon dog, not the God of the Underworld. They get warm
> fuzzies thinking about Pluto. It's all wrapped up with their favorite
> teacher, Miss Smith, first-grade naptime, and Disney cartoons down at
> the Roxy.
>
> That being the case, they are deeply saddened by Pluto's "demotion."
> Some apparently think this ruling means Pluto will be PHYSICALLY
> removed from the Solar System (sorta like that Mickey Mouse cartoon
> where Pluto feels UNLOVED and Mick comes out to see the shocking vista
> of an empty doghouse and Pluto's empty collar lying on the ground)!
>
> ;-)
>
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
> Author of:
> Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
> and
> The Urban Astronomer's Guide
> <http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland>
> The Annual SCT User Imaging Contest is Underway!
> <http://www.rothritter.com/contest/2006/>
>
>
> Carlos wrote:
>> Mixing emotions with science is a bad starting point. Who says Pluto is
>> not
>> a planet?
>>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 23:54:13
From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
In article <44f0c3dc$0$21978$a729d347@news.telepac.pt >,
Carlos <casaraiva@...t > wrote:
>In Science you need to put emotions aside. You need "cold" thinking to
>decide logically.
Science does not need any particular classification of planets in order
to be logical. Whether Pluto is a planet or not makes not one iota of
difference. Astronomy is not stamp-collecting.
-- Richard
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 07:21:01
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
> > Pluto Diameter is 2300 km That is Quite Big. So we cannot say it is a
> > astroid.
> >
> > Astroid has size of maximum 1-2 kms.
>
> Although most asteroids are small, Ceres (newly redefined as a Dwarf Planet)
> is over 900km diameter, and there are several that are well over 100km
> across.
Moon is a satellite of Earth, Why as it revolves arround the Earth and
is big enough to have a gravity.
Pluto is a Planet as it also moves arround Sun and has a Gravitational
Pull for objects sitting on it.
Any heavenly body which revolves arround a star and has significant
gravity can be considered as a Planet.
Astroids are so small that they do not have any gravity just like other
small objects on earth.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 00:29:06
From: Starman
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
You don't get ?
It's the old definition of a planet, no matter if you like it or not science
has changed it's definition
of what qualifys it to be either a planet or a dwarf planet
differnt definitions of the same things creates only confusion thats why you
have to live with it
no matter how you feel about it, and is it really so much of a change
anyway?
Pluto has always been a Dwarf planet compared to other planets in our solar
system
look at our sun, it's definition is also a Dwarf (yellow dwarf star) so is
it fair to say it's not a star ?
Pluto is still a planet, yeah its a dwarf planet but thats still a planet
--snip
> Any heavenly body which revolves arround a star and has significant
> gravity can be considered as a Planet.
>
> Astroids are so small that they do not have any gravity just like other
> small objects on earth.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 9801 spam-mails
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent en gratis SPAMfighter her.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 17:48:40
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
On 08/26/2006 11:21 PM +0900, Sanny wrote:
> Moon is a satellite of Earth, Why as it revolves arround the Earth and
> is big enough to have a gravity.
>
> Pluto is a Planet as it also moves arround Sun and has a Gravitational
> Pull for objects sitting on it.
>
> Any heavenly body which revolves arround a star and has significant
> gravity can be considered as a Planet.
>
> Astroids are so small that they do not have any gravity just like other
> small objects on earth.
Sanny, gravity is the force of attraction between all masses in the
universe. Asteroids and "other small objects" on Earth and elsewhere
exert gravitational force on other masses. How much force depends on the
mass of the bodies involved and the distance(s) between them.
trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 06:00:58
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
Pluto Diameter is 2300 km That is Quite Big. So we cannot say it is a
astroid.
Astroid has size of maximum 1-2 kms.
Once Scientists found 2 more Planets the Old scientists just could not
take that Solar System has 11 Planets.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 17:13:35
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
In article <1156597258.270041.292990@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
Sanny <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Pluto Diameter is 2300 km That is Quite Big. So we cannot say it is a
> astroid.
>
> Astroid has size of maximum 1-2 kms.
:-) ....although most asteroids do fall into that size range, there are
actually thousands of asteroids larger than 2 km. The biggest
Earth-grazing asteroid, Toutatis, is some 8 km large. Farther away,
there are dozens of asteroids in the main asteroid belt with a size
larger than 100 km.
> Once Scientists found 2 more Planets the Old scientists just could not
> take that Solar System has 11 Planets.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:55:16
From: OG
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
"Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156597258.270041.292990@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Pluto Diameter is 2300 km That is Quite Big. So we cannot say it is a
> astroid.
>
> Astroid has size of maximum 1-2 kms.
Although most asteroids are small, Ceres (newly redefined as a Dwarf Planet)
is over 900km diameter, and there are several that are well over 100km
across.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 22:05:22
From: Carlos
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
Sanny wrote :
> Pluto Diameter is 2300 km That is Quite Big. So we cannot say it is a
> astroid.
> Astroid has size of maximum 1-2 kms.
Right. Pluto is a Dwarft Planet.
Carlos
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 05:57:25
From: CNJ999
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
Carlos wrote:
> Now we have 8 big planets and 4 smaller planets that we call dwarft planets
> , one of them is the famous Pluto, once considered a big planet but latter
> find out it wasn't so big. The asteroids and comets maintains their
> definitions.
>
> What's the big deal about all that? Why all the fuzz and weepings?
> Will the Universe change because of that?
Clearly, there is no real problem with the new arrangement. The problem
is with the childishness and emotional needs of some professionals and
amateurs who, for some strange, irrational reason, desparately need to
maintain one particular KBO (Pluto) as a planet, instead of rightfully
placing it among its own kind. Had any other KBOs been known at the
time of Pluto's discovery, or had that discovery come nearer to the
present, Pluto would NEVER have been regarded as a planet or anything
like it.
Anyone who reads the actual period literature will immediately
recognize that many astronomers were creating unrealistic senarios
right from the beginning in an attempt to justify Pluto's
classification as a classical planet. Initially it was guessed to be as
large or larger than Earth but with a very low albedo. When I was a
young man and the 200-inch still showed it as all but star-like, it was
suggested to still be at least 4,000 miles in diameter but completely
covered with a smooth icy surface that produced only a weak specular
reflection. I recall many similar theories made in vain attempts down
through the years to keep Pluto of planetary stature...until it finally
became clear that Pluto was in truth nothing but a tiny object with a
large binary companion and all but identical with the other KBO's that
were then being discovered at the time.
Yet even the new arrangement takes special pains to placate the pro
Pluto-is-a-planet people by introducing the term "dwarf planets". And
the class of dwarf planets will surely come back to haunt us as dozens,
if not hundreds, of such objects turn up in the outer fringes of the
solar system. In all honesty, the Sol system could have been
justifiably broken down into simply 8 planets and assorted debris,
without special need for anything more...were it not for the crybaby
Pluto people.
JBortle
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 17:13:35
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
In article <1156597045.468438.118710@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
CNJ999 <jbortle@aol.com > wrote:
....................
> Anyone who reads the actual period literature will immediately
> recognize that many astronomers were creating unrealistic senarios
> right from the beginning in an attempt to justify Pluto's
> classification as a classical planet. Initially it was guessed to be as
> large or larger than Earth but with a very low albedo. When I was a
> young man and the 200-inch still showed it as all but star-like, it was
> suggested to still be at least 4,000 miles in diameter but completely
> covered with a smooth icy surface that produced only a weak specular
> reflection. I recall many similar theories made in vain attempts down
> through the years to keep Pluto of planetary stature...until it finally
> became clear that Pluto was in truth nothing but a tiny object with a
> large binary companion and all but identical with the other KBO's that
> were then being discovered at the time.
Charon was discovered in 1978. 14 years later the first KBO (besides
Pluto) was discovered -- and it took some additiona years before we
actually knew that there are many KBO's out there.
Thus, for some 14-16 years, we knew the true size of Pluto (because of
Charon's discovery), but we didn't yet know that there are many KBO's
out there - the Kuiper Belt was then still a hypothesis.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:07:05
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
I don't understand why people are getting worked up over this. Petitions?
Writing the president? Give me a break! Science moves on. With the
discovery of giant planets and sort-of planets, science needed new taxonomy,
and now we have it. One good thing: with Pluto having lost its lustre,
maybe people will stop asking to see it at star parties held under mag 4
skies!
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 05:23:09
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
Definitions are great and demoting or elevating the status of a planet
must seem like the greatest thing but once you are finished doing
that,what next ?.
Oh,I know,astronomy is so dead as an intellectual and intuitive pursuit
that the next decade will be spent over arguing over definitions as a
means to demonstrate that the once noble discipline is not a corpse .
The empiricists don't care how you define a planet,they care about
perturbations, hydrostatic equilibrium and all the other linguisitc
junk which allows them to maintain a celestial sphere astrological
dominance with its attendent 'predictive' power all astrologers
possess.
The mentality of astrophotographers is a pushover for celestial sphere
geometers which is why you have this irritating situation however
astrophotographers can establish a situation where they can move
between astronomy proper and their hobby by adopting the older and more
stable astronomical working principles that exist under the 17th
century celestial sphere junk.
Carlos wrote:
> Mixing emotions with science is a bad starting point. Who says Pluto is not
> a planet?
>
> What was done was to regroup the thousands of solar system bodies into some
> categories. If we don't do that we will end up with dozens of planets.
> In a broad sense, all the celestial bodies, except satellites, that
> translate around a star is a planet. If we use this broad sense definition
> we will end up with thousands of planets. So we need to reorganize the
> nomenclature of the solar system making it more simple and easy to
> understand.
>
> So, we now regrouped all the "planets" (in broad sense) into the following
> categories:
>
> Planets : Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus.
> Dwarft Planets : 2003 UB313, Pluto, Charon, Ceres
> Asteroids : thousands of them.
> Comets : thousands of them.
>
> Now we have 8 big planets and 4 smaller planets that we call dwarft planets
> , one of them is the famous Pluto, once considered a big planet but latter
> find out it wasn't so big. The asteroids and comets maintains their
> definitions.
>
> What's the big deal about all that? Why all the fuzz and weepings?
> Will the Universe change because of that?
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 02:24:24
From: Sjouke Burry
Subject: Re:astro:confused aobout outer system
|
What is the difference (if any) between
Kuiper belt and Oort cloud??
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 17:13:35
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
In article <44f027de$0$22009$a729d347@news.telepac.pt >,
Carlos <casaraiva@net > wrote:
> Mixing emotions with science is a bad starting point. Who says Pluto is not
> a planet?
The IAU just said so, only a few days ago......
> What was done was to regroup the thousands of solar system bodies into some
> categories. If we don't do that we will end up with dozens of planets.
> In a broad sense, all the celestial bodies, except satellites, that
> translate around a star is a planet. If we use this broad sense definition
> we will end up with thousands of planets. So we need to reorganize the
> nomenclature of the solar system making it more simple and easy to
> understand.
>
> So, we now regrouped all the "planets" (in broad sense) into the following
> categories:
>
> Planets : Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus.
> Dwarft Planets : 2003 UB313, Pluto, Charon, Ceres
> Asteroids : thousands of them.
> Comets : thousands of them.
The categories "asteroids" and "comets" were lumped together in one category:
Small Solar System Objects. Which bis quite sensible, since there are several
objects (e.g. Chiron) which has been labelled both "asteroid" and "comet".
> Now we have 8 big planets and 4 smaller planets that we call dwarft planets
> , one of them is the famous Pluto, once considered a big planet but latter
> find out it wasn't so big. The asteroids and comets maintains their
> definitions.
>
> What's the big deal about all that? Why all the fuzz and weepings?
> Will the Universe change because of that?
Some people just fins it hard to adjust to the change. But they'll get
used to it. Today, nobody misses Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta among the
planets even though they were called "planets" 150-200 years ago. In
150-200 years, nobody will miss Pluto among the planets.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 02:19:51
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <44f0c3dc$0$21978$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
> Carlos <casaraiva@...t> wrote:
>
> >In Science you need to put emotions aside. You need "cold" thinking to
> >decide logically.
>
> Science does not need any particular classification of planets in order
> to be logical. Whether Pluto is a planet or not makes not one iota of
> difference. Astronomy is not stamp-collecting.
>
> -- Richard
This response is indeed honest,creating a fuss over 'definitions' as
long as the language of the Newtonian invention of 'perturbative
effects' remain is all that counts.This is just an exercise in letting
astrophotographers know who rules the roost - celestial sphere
geometers and their exotic concepts.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 02:17:26
From: Wally Wonderful
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
Carlos wrote:
> Mixing emotions with science is a bad starting point. Who says Pluto is not
> a planet?
>
> What was done was to regroup the thousands of solar system bodies into some
> categories. If we don't do that we will end up with dozens of planets.
> In a broad sense, all the celestial bodies, except satellites, that
> translate around a star is a planet. If we use this broad sense definition
> we will end up with thousands of planets. So we need to reorganize the
> nomenclature of the solar system making it more simple and easy to
> understand.
>
> So, we now regrouped all the "planets" (in broad sense) into the following
> categories:
>
> Planets : Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus.
> Dwarft Planets : 2003 UB313, Pluto, Charon, Ceres
> Asteroids : thousands of them.
> Comets : thousands of them.
>
> Now we have 8 big planets and 4 smaller planets that we call dwarft planets
> , one of them is the famous Pluto, once considered a big planet but latter
> find out it wasn't so big. The asteroids and comets maintains their
> definitions.
>
> What's the big deal about all that? Why all the fuzz and weepings?
> Will the Universe change because of that?
Yes! MIN will become a member of the IAU.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 10:16:42
From: Carlos
Subject: Re: About Pluto Demotion
|
Who is MIN ???
Carlos
"Wally Wonderful" <wally@ufo.org > wrote in message
news:44F14706.AEA344C3@ufo.org...
>
>
> Carlos wrote:
>
>> Mixing emotions with science is a bad starting point. Who says Pluto is
>> not
>> a planet?
>>
>> What was done was to regroup the thousands of solar system bodies into
>> some
>> categories. If we don't do that we will end up with dozens of planets.
>> In a broad sense, all the celestial bodies, except satellites, that
>> translate around a star is a planet. If we use this broad sense
>> definition
>> we will end up with thousands of planets. So we need to reorganize the
>> nomenclature of the solar system making it more simple and easy to
>> understand.
>>
>> So, we now regrouped all the "planets" (in broad sense) into the
>> following
>> categories:
>>
>> Planets : Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and
>> Uranus.
>> Dwarft Planets : 2003 UB313, Pluto, Charon, Ceres
>> Asteroids : thousands of them.
>> Comets : thousands of them.
>>
>> Now we have 8 big planets and 4 smaller planets that we call dwarft
>> planets
>> , one of them is the famous Pluto, once considered a big planet but
>> latter
>> find out it wasn't so big. The asteroids and comets maintains their
>> definitions.
>>
>> What's the big deal about all that? Why all the fuzz and weepings?
>> Will the Universe change because of that?
>
> Yes! MIN will become a member of the IAU.
>
>
>
|
|
